Attenuation of alignment effect with exocentric encoding of location

An object's location is best retrieved from the orientation in which it was learned. Otherwise, retrieval necessitates a mental effort to restore the original perspective. In this case there is a cost to speed and accuracy of location responses known as the alignment effect. We hypothesised that one can attenuate this alignment effect by systematically referring objects in an exocentric frame of reference during learning. Sixteen male students were asked to learn the location of five objects disposed in a totally new environment either by locating the objects in an egocentric or in an exocentric spatial frame of reference. After the learning phase, the participants were asked to imagine orienting themselves to an object in the scene and to point to another object. The analysis of pointing accuracy, orientation, and pointing times showed that the performances of participants engaged in the exocentric condition remained insensitive to the augmentation of the angle between their actual position on the path and the imagined orientation. On the other hand, the participants engaged in egocentric learning were disoriented when the difference between their actual orientation and the imagined orientation was great. We conclude that when an object's location is intentionally referred to in an exocentric reference frame, alignment effect can be significantly reduced.     

The underestimation of egocentric distance: evidence from frontal matching tasks

There is controversy over the existence, nature, and cause of error in egocentric distance judgments. One proposal is that the systematic biases often found in explicit judgments of egocentric distance along the ground may be related to recently observed biases in the perceived declination of gaze (Durgin & Li, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, in press), To measure perceived egocentric distance nonverbally, observers in a field were asked to position themselves so that their distance from one of two experimenters was equal to the frontal distance between the experimenters. Observers placed themselves too far away, consistent with egocentric distance underestimation. A similar experiment was conducted with vertical frontal extents. Both experiments were replicated in panoramic virtual reality. Perceived egocentric distance was quantitatively consistent with angular bias in perceived gaze declination (1.5 gain). Finally, an exocentric distance-matching task was contrasted with a variant of the egocentric matching task. The egocentric matching data approximate a constant compression of perceived egocentric distance with a power function exponent of nearly 1; exocentric matches had an exponent of about 0.67. The divergent pattern between egocentric and exocentric matches suggests that they depend on different visual cues.     

Egocentric and Exocentric Spatial Judgements of Visual Displacement

The role of changes in ego- and exocentric spatial relationships on perceptual judgements about visual displacement was investigated in this study. Subjects were asked to indicate whether a dot in a test stimulus was displaced compared to a dot in a reference stimulus. Subjects were given explicit instructions to report displacement relative to themselves (egocentric) or relative to a circle surrounding the dot (exocentric). Four types of test stimuli were used in which object-circle (exocentric) and object-observer (egocentric) relations were systematically varied. It was found that for test stimuli that reveal conflicting ego- and exocentric spatial information, subjects performed poorly in both instruction conditions. This suggests that ego- and exocentric representations cannot be used independently and are probably interconnected.     

Remembering object position in the absence of vision: egocentric, allocentric, and egocentric decentred frames of reference

In three experiments we examined whether memory for object locations in the peri-personal space in the absence of vision is affected by the correspondence between encoding and test either of the body position or of the reference point. In particular, the study focuses on the distinction between different spatial representations, by using a paradigm in which participants are asked to relocate objects explored haptically. Three frames of reference were systematically compared. In experiment 1, participants relocated the objects either from the same position of learning by taking as reference their own body (centred egocentric condition) or from a 90 degrees decentred position (allocentric condition). Performance was measured in terms of linear distance errors and angular distance errors. Results revealed that the allocentric condition was more difficult than the centred egocentric condition. In experiment 2, participants performed either the centred egocentric condition or a decentred egocentric condition, in which the body position during the test was the same as at encoding (egocentric) but the frame of reference was based on a point decentred by 90 degrees. The decentred egocentric condition was found to be more difficult than the centred egocentric condition. Finally, in experiment 3, participants performed in the decentred egocentric condition or the allocentric condition. Here, the allocentric condition was found to be more difficult than the decentred egocentric condition. Taken together, the results suggest that also in the peripersonal space and in the absence of vision different frames of reference can be distinguished. In particular, the decentred egocentric condition involves a frame of reference which seems to be neither allocentric nor totally egocentric.     

Naïve predictions of motion and orientation in mirrors: From what we see to what we expect reflections to do

The study aimed to investigate naïve beliefs regarding the dynamic and static behavior of reflections. In the first three experiments, participants in the study made predictions about the correspondence between real and reflected movements or about the orientation of the reflection of a static object placed in front of a mirror. In Experiments 1 and 2, paper-and-pencil tasks were used and in Experiment 3 participants were asked to make their predictions while imagining that they were facing a mirror. Results revealed that a percentage of undergraduates (ranging from 25% to 35%) were unable to make correct predictions. We classified the errors into types and found that responses either conform to the belief that reflections do the same or that they do the opposite. This suggests an oversimplification of the geometry of mirror reflections in two directions: participants either generalize what they see when movements are parallel to the mirror or what they see when movements are orthogonal to the mirror. Findings from Experiment 4 confirmed that these two expectations fit in with what people perceive in mirrors. Findings from Experiment 5 confirmed that this is also in agreement with the relationship perceived when looking at similar movements and orientations “outside” mirrors.     

Judgments of exocentric direction in large-scale space

Judgments of exocentric direction are quite common, especially when judging where others are looking or pointing. To investigate these judgments in large-scale space, observers were shown two targets in a large open field and were asked to judge the exocentric direction specified by the targets. The targets ranged in egocentric distance from 5 to 20 m with target-to-target angular separations of 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and 135 degrees. Observers judged exocentric direction using two methods: (i) by judging which point on a distant fence appeared collinear with the two targets, and (ii) by orienting their body in a direction parallel with the perceived line segment. In the collinearity task, observers had to imagine the line connecting the targets and then extrapolate this imagined line out to the fence. Observers indicated the perceived point of collinearity on a handheld 360 degrees panoramic cylinder representing their vista. The two judgment methods gave similar results except for a constant bias associated with the body-pointing response. Aside from this bias, the results of these two methods agree with other existing research indicating an effect of relative egocentric distance to the targets on judgment error--line segments are perceived as being rotated in depth. Additionally, verbal estimates of egocentric and exocentric distance suggest that perceived distance is not the cause for the systematic errors in judging exocentric direction.     

Through the looking glass: how the relationship between an object and its reflection affects the perception of distance and size

This is the first study to test the extent to which reflections help locate objects in space and perceive their size. For planar mirrors, the relative size of a target and its reflection is informative about the absolute distance of the target in units of the distance between target and mirror surface. When the target is near the mirror, target and reflection are similar in size; as the target moves away from the mirror, the difference in size increases. Observers saw a pair of objects in front of a mirror and judged relative size and distance (separately). Other visual cues to size and distance were eliminated, except lateral offset, which was tested in experiment 3. Experiment 2 controlled for the presence of directional feedback. Results showed orderly psychophysical functions for both size and distance with steeper slopes for distance judgments. In experiments 4 and 5 stereograms were used. Even when binocular information was present, the additional cue provided by reflections increased the accuracy of size and distance judgments. The same pattern of results was observed in the absence of feedback.     

Do reference surfaces influence exocentric pointing?

All elements of the visual field are known to influence the perception of the egocentric distances of objects. Not only the ground surface of a scene, but also the surface at the back or other objects in the scene can affect an observer's egocentric distance estimation of an object. We tested whether this is also true for exocentric direction estimations. We used an exocentric pointing task to test whether the presence of poster-boards in the visual scene would influence the perception of the exocentric direction between two test-objects. In this task the observer has to direct a pointer, with a remote control, to a target. We placed the poster-boards at various positions in the visual field to test whether these boards would affect the settings of the observer. We found that they only affected the settings when they directly served as a reference for orienting the pointer to the target.     

Frames of reference in spatial memories acquired from language

Four experiments examined reference systems in spatial memories acquired from language. Participants read narratives that located 4 objects in canonical (front, back, left, right) or noncanonical (left front, right front, left back, right back) positions around them. Participants' focus of attention was first set on each of the 4 objects, and then they were asked to report the name of the object at the location indicated by a direction word or an iconic arrow. The results indicated that spatial memories were represented in terms of intrinsic (object-to-object) reference systems, which were selected using egocentric cues (e.g., alignment with body axes). Results also indicated that linguistic direction cues were comprehended in terms of egocentric reference systems, whereas iconic arrows were not.     

An egocentric frame of reference in implicit motor sequence learning

We investigated which frame of reference is evoked during implicit motor sequence learning. Participants completed a typical serial reaction time task. In the first experiment, we isolated egocentric and allocentric frames of reference and found that learning was solely in an egocentric reference frame. In a second experiment, we isolated hand-centered space from other egocentric frames of reference. We found that for a one-handed sequencing task, the sequence was coded in an egocentric reference frame but not a hand-centered reference frame. Our results are restricted to implicit learning of novel sequences in the early stages of learning. These findings are consistent with claims that the neural mechanisms involved in motor skill learning operate in egocentric coordinates.     

Space in Hand and Mind: Gesture and Spatial Frames of Reference in Bilingual Mexico

Speakers of many languages prefer allocentric frames of reference (FoRs) when talking about small-scale space, using words like “east” or “downhill.” Ethnographic work has suggested that this preference is also reflected in how such speakers gesture. Here, we investigate this possibility with a field experiment in Juchitán, Mexico. In Juchitán, a preferentially allocentric language (Isthmus Zapotec) coexists with a preferentially egocentric one (Spanish). Using a novel task, we elicited spontaneous co-speech gestures about small-scale motion events (e.g., toppling blocks) in Zapotec-dominant speakers and in balanced Zapotec-Spanish bilinguals. Consistent with prior claims, speakers’ spontaneous gestures reliably reflected either an egocentric or allocentric FoR. The use of the egocentric FoR was predicted—not by speakers’ dominant language or the language they used in the task—but by mastery of words for “right” and “left,” as well as by properties of the event they were describing. Additionally, use of the egocentric FoR in gesture predicted its use in a separate nonlinguistic memory task, suggesting a cohesive cognitive style. Our results show that the use of spatial FoRs in gesture is pervasive, systematic, and shaped by several factors. Spatial gestures, like other forms of spatial conceptualization, are thus best understood within broader ecologies of communication and cognition.     

Reflections on the hand: the use of a mirror highlights the contributions of interpreted and retinotopic representations in the rubber-hand illusion

In the rubber-hand illusion, observing a rubber hand stroked in synchrony with one's own hand results in mislocalisation of the own hand, which is perceived as being located closer to the rubber hand. This illusion depends on having the rubber hand placed at a plausible egocentric orientation with respect to the observer. In the present study, we took advantage of this finding in order to compare the relative influence on the illusion of the rubber hand's perceived retinotopic image against its real-world position. The rubber hand was positioned egocentrically (fingers away from the participant) or allocentrically (fingers towards the participant), while participants viewed it either directly or via a mirror that was placed facing the participant. In the mirror conditions, the orientation of the retinotopic image of the hand (either egocentric or allocentric) was opposed to its real-world orientation. We found that the illusion was elicited in both mirror conditions, to roughly the same extent. Thus either of two representations can elicit the rubber-hand illusion: a world-centred understanding of the scene, resulting from the inferred position of the hand based on its mirror reflection, or a purely visual retinotopic representation of the viewed hand. In the mirror conditions, the illusion was somewhat weaker than in the typical directly viewed egocentric condition. We attribute this to competition between two incompatible representations introduced by the presence of the mirror. Finally, in two control experiments we ruled out that this reduction was due to two properties of mirror reflections: the increased perceived distance of items and the reversal of the apparent handedness of the rubber hand.     

听障和听力正常人群空间主导性和空间参照框架的交互作用

通过要求被试分别在近处空间和远处空间完成空间参照框架的判断任务, 考察了听障和听力正常人群空间主导性和空间参照框架的交互作用。结果表明：(1)相对于听力正常人群, 听障人群完成自我参照框架判断任务的反应时更长, 而在完成环境参照框架判断任务无显著差异; (2)听障人群和听力正常人群空间主导性和空间参照框架交互作用呈现出相反模式。研究表明, 听障人群在听力功能受损后, 其空间主导性和空间参照框架的交互作用也产生了变化。     

Errors in judging information about reflections in mirrors

We investigated people's perception and knowledge of planar mirror reflections. People were accurate at deciding when they could first see their reflection as they approached a mirror from the side, but only if their reflection was visible. Most people stopped too early if the mirror was covered up. People also overestimated the size of the reflection of their face on the surface of a mirror if they were shown a covered mirror. Their accuracy improved somewhat if their reflection was visible but, unlike the first task, they still made striking errors. Perceptual feedback thus improved performance at predicting the behaviour of mirror reflections in both tasks but failed to eliminate errors in the second task. The overestimation of reflection size was not face-specific as it generalised to novel stimuli (paper ellipses) and it was found with both a matching response and for verbal size estimations. The early error in the first task appears to be due to an inaccurate belief that can be overridden by perceptual feedback. The overestimation in the second task is primarily caused by a powerful size-constancy effect.     

Evidence of separable spatial representations in a virtual navigation task

Three experiments investigated spatial orientation in a virtual navigation task. Subjects had to adjust a homing vector indicating their end position relative to the origin of the path. It was demonstrated that sparse visual flow was sufficient for accurate path integration. Moreover, subjects were found to prefer a distinct egocentric or allocentric reference frame to solve the task. "Turners" reacted as if they had taken on the new orientation during turns of the path by mentally rotating their sagittal axis (egocentric frame). "Nonturners," by contrast, tracked the new orientation without adopting it (allocentric frame). When instructed to use their nonpreferred reference frame, both groups displayed no decline in response accuracy relative to their preferred frame; even when presented with reaction formats based on either ego or allocentric coordinates, with format unpredictable on a trial, both groups responded highly accurately. These findings support the assumption of coexisting spatial representations during navigation.     

Speech and gesture in spatial language and cognition among the Yucatec Mayas

In previous analyses of the influence of language on cognition, speech has been the main channel examined. In studies conducted among Yucatec Mayas, efforts to determine the preferred frame of reference in use in this community have failed to reach an agreement (Bohnemeyer & Stolz, 2006; Levinson, 2003 vs. Le Guen, 2006, 2009). This paper argues for a multimodal analysis of language that encompasses gesture as well as speech, and shows that the preferred frame of reference in Yucatec Maya is only detectable through the analysis of co-speech gesture and not through speech alone. A series of experiments compares knowledge of the semantics of spatial terms, performance on nonlinguistic tasks and gestures produced by men and women. The results show a striking gender difference in the knowledge of the semantics of spatial terms, but an equal preference for a geocentric frame of reference in nonverbal tasks. In a localization task, participants used a variety of strategies in their speech, but they all exhibited a systematic preference for a geocentric frame of reference in their gestures.     

Haptic space processing--allocentric and egocentric reference frames.

In this paper a haptic matching, task is used to analyze haptic spatial processing. In various conditions, blindfolded participants were asked to make a test bar parallel to a reference bar. This always resulted in large but systematic deviations. It will be shown that the results can be described with a model in which an egocentric reference frame biases the participants' settings: What a participant haptically perceives as parallel is a weighted average of parallel in allocentric space and parallel in egocentric space. The basis of the egocentric reference frame is uncertain. There is strong evidence that at least a hand-centred reference frame is involved, but possibly a body-centred reference frame also plays a role.     

What fits into a mirror: Naïve beliefs about the field of view

Research on na?ve physics and na?ve optics have shown that people hold surprising beliefs about everyday phenomena that are in contrast with what they see. In this article, we investigated what adults expect to be the field of view of a mirror from various viewpoints. The studies presented here confirm that humans have difficulty dealing with the role of the viewpoint in reflections and consistently prove that predictions are dominated by two patterns and a frontal bias. The majority of adults correctly predict that, from a central viewpoint, the space reflected in a mirror expands beyond the orthogonal projections to both its edges. For eccentric viewpoints, half of the participants expected a different (correct) behavior, while the other half also predicted, in this case, expansion at both edges. This means that, contrary to what happens in reality, they expected the mirror to show the space that is orthogonally in front of it and also beyond it, whatever the position of the observer (frontal bias). The error also persisted after the observation of a real reflection. However, this was not found to be true with windows. Performance improved when participants were asked to recognize the correct answer out of a series of alternatives (in this condition, only a quantitative error persisted). In both tasks (production and recognition of the correct response), people relied on imagination or memory and not on the application of the optical rule that angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

Effects of visual deprivation on space representation: immediate and delayed pointing toward memorised proprioceptive targets

Congenitally blind, late-blind, and blindfolded-sighted participants performed a pointing task at proximal memorised proprioceptive targets. The locations to be memorised were presented on a sagittal plane by passively positioning the left index finger. A 'go' signal for matching the target location with the right index finger was given 0 or 8 s after left-hand demonstration. Absolute distance errors were smaller in the blind groups, with both delays pooled together; signed distance and direction errors were underestimated with the longer delay, and were overestimated by blind groups, whereas the blindfolded-sighted group underestimated them. Elongation of the scatters was stretched but not affected by delay or group. The surface scatter was greater with the longer delay; and orientation of the main axis of the pointing ellipses shows the use of an egocentric frame of reference by the congenitally blind group for both delays, the use of egocentric (0 s) and exocentric (8 s) frame of reference by the blindfolded-sighted group, with the late-blind group using an intermediate frame of reference for both delays. Therefore, early and late visual-deprivation effects are distinguished from transient visual-deprivation effects as long-term deprivation leads to increased capabilities (absolute distance estimations), unaltered organisation (for surface and elongation), and altered organisation (amplitude and direction estimations, orientation of pointing distribution) of the spatial representation with proprioception. Besides providing an extensive exploration of pointing ability and mechanisms in the visually deprived population, the results show that cross-modal plasticity applies not only to neural bases but extends to spatial behaviour.     

Misperception of exocentric directions in auditory space

Previous studies have demonstrated large errors (over 30 degrees ) in visually perceived exocentric directions (the direction between two objects that are both displaced from the observer's location; e.g., Philbeck et al. [Philbeck, J. W., Sargent, J., Arthur, J. C., & Dopkins, S. (2008). Large manual pointing errors, but accurate verbal reports, for indications of target azimuth. Perception, 37, 511-534]). Here, we investigated whether a similar pattern occurs in auditory space. Blindfolded participants either attempted to aim a pointer at auditory targets (an exocentric task) or gave a verbal estimate of the egocentric target azimuth. Targets were located at 20-160 degrees azimuth in the right hemispace. For comparison, we also collected pointing and verbal judgments for visual targets. We found that exocentric pointing responses exhibited sizeable undershooting errors, for both auditory and visual targets, that tended to become more strongly negative as azimuth increased (up to -19 degrees for visual targets at 160 degrees ). Verbal estimates of the auditory and visual target azimuths, however, showed a dramatically different pattern, with relatively small overestimations of azimuths in the rear hemispace. At least some of the differences between verbal and pointing responses appear to be due to the frames of reference underlying the responses; when participants used the pointer to reproduce the egocentric target azimuth rather than the exocentric target direction relative to the pointer, the pattern of pointing errors more closely resembled that seen in verbal reports. These results show that there are similar distortions in perceiving exocentric directions in visual and auditory space.